Power Line Forum

Criminal Justice in the United Kingdom

2008-05-12T00:17:05-05:00

In recent years there has been a steady stream of horrific crime stories from Great Britain. <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/19422

» View the article

Matthews: Whites Seeking ‘Permission’ to Vote Against Obama

2008-05-10T20:53:40-05:00

During yesterday’s installment of his Hillary Must Go Show, Chris Matthews smugly suggested that white people are just itching for any excuse not to vote for Barack Obama. The haughty Hardball host is no stranger to racial swordplay—but Wednesday’s declaration by Hillary that Obama can’t deliver the white votes needed to defeat McCain appears to have shifted him into PC overdrive.

After a back and forth with Clinton communication director Howard Wolfson in which he mocked Hillary’s comments about “working white Americans” with almost every breath, Matthews rolled out David Bonoir. The former Edwards campaign manager barely began explaining his recent affliction with Obamamania when Matthews swayed the subject back to Hillary, and why she dared continue her irreverent challenge to providence.

Well, began Bonoir: She’s a fighter. She’s got a following. But eventually she’ll ......

Snapped Matthews:

“Are you worried that she’s giving white voters a permission slip to vote against an African-American candidate the longer she’s in the race?”

A permission slip? As in a written proxy a parent conveys to another grown-up via and empowering an underage progeny? Is that how Chris sees white Americans—as juveniles awaiting adult authorization prior to action? Who seek sanction to vote their own political choice rather than the trendy politically correct cause du jour? The way an employer might seek an Affirmative Action waver?

And just who the hell is this sanctimonious blow-hard to dare suggest any such approval necessary to vote against a black man? Does he really believe than any but the most hopelessly intoxicated by loony liberal libation see electing a black president as some strange sacrament for the centuries past sin of slavery? Or that racism alone must explain a white person’s electoral victory over one of color?

Perhaps the pontificating Matthews would be good enough to clarify why 9 out of 10 blacks voting for Obama in Tuesday’s North Carolina Primary was just dandy while 6 out of 10 whites not doing so reeks of racism.

Watching the media swoon over their anointed one has been distasteful enough of late. And what they’ve done to Hillary, whose station as the PC candidate was all but “inevitable” until the smooth young black senator came along, is truly a wonder to behold.

Of course, seeing Matthews ladling out portions of pompous political propriety to his guests and viewers every night since Super Tuesday has been particularly stomach-turning.

But last night, sporting his mysterious new Richie Cunningham coiffeur, the man attained a new level of opprobrium when he turned the very gray process of candidate preference into a simple matter of black or white.

And then pronounced the only civilized choice.

http://tinyurl.com/4tutcw

Marc Sheppard, American Thinker. Great article!

Matthews actually believes this. I cannot imagine how anyone in their right mind can believe that Americans are looking for an excuse not to vote for Obama just because he is black. Does Matthews not understand that some of us just don’t like his politics and/or theology? And why is it not racist that 9 out 10 blacks are voting for Obama then?

The left has made this entire race about nothing but race. I guess it doesn’t concern them that we are voting for the person will will be the President of the United States which is the most powerful position in the world. The only thing that matters is that we don’t show ourselves, as a country, as being racist. They just don’t get that it has nothing to do with race.

House Republicans Vote Against Mothers

2008-05-11T19:00:14-05:00

It was already shaping up to be a difficult year for congressional Republicans. Now, on the cusp of Mother’s Day, comes this: A majority of the House GOP has voted against motherhood.

On Wednesday afternoon, the House had just voted, 412 to 0, to pass H. Res. 1113, “Celebrating the role of mothers in the United States and supporting the goals and ideals of Mother’s Day,” when Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), rose in protest.

“Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote,” he announced.

Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.), who has two young daughters, moved to table Tiahrt’s request, setting up a revote. This time, 178 Republicans cast their votes against mothers.

It has long been the custom to compare a popular piece of legislation to motherhood and apple pie. Evidently, that is no longer the standard. Worse, Republicans are now confronted with a John Kerry-esque predicament: They actually voted for motherhood before they voted against it.

Republicans, unhappy with the Democratic majority, have been using such procedural tactics as this all week to bring the House to a standstill, but the assault on mothers may have gone too far. House Minority Leader John Boehner, asked yesterday to explain why he and 177 of his colleagues switched their votes, answered: “Oh, we just wanted to make sure that everyone was on record in support of Mother’s Day.”

By voting against it?

Here’s a link for your consideration.

Schadenfreude ist die schönste Freude.

P.S.

<sarcasm>yes, I think the GOP is fundamentally opposed to motherhood.</sarcasm>

Daily Scripture -Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb,

2008-05-12T03:47:31-05:00

Lest we forget, quite possibly the most important mother in the history of man kind I thought that it would be good to post the following.

Luke 1:26-38

26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.

32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 3

5 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. 37 For with God nothing shall be impossible. 38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

The King James Version, (Cambridge: Cambridge) 1769.

It’s over

2008-05-12T00:21:42-05:00

The English Premier Football League season, that is. You can read my before-and-after post <a href="http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/

» View the article

Running Interference for Obama

2008-05-12T00:15:35-05:00

This has been noted by conservative sites like Little Green Footballs and <a href="http://www

» View the article

Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, Powell, Rice, and Yoo are all war criminals.

2008-05-01T07:25:50-05:00

It is a war crime to violate the Geneva conventions, or to order such violation, or to knowingly fail to put a stop to such violation, including the use of torture which was ordered by top administration officials and performed at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.

Oh, and violating 18 USC 2441 carries a maximum death sentence if someone is tortured to death—which has happened.

Thus the practice of “defining torture down”.

Good thing Canada and the U.S. share a border (yes, another socialized medicine thread)

2008-05-06T17:50:24-05:00

Ah, it’s been a while since we had one of these. But a story like this seems to pop up monthly, so I just thought I’d post it.

More than 100 Canadian women with high-risk pregnancies have been sent to United States hospitals over the past year – in what a doctors’ group attributes to the lack of a national birthing plan.

The problem has peaked, with British Columbia and Ontario each sending a record number of women to U.S. neonatal intensive care units (NICUs). Specifically, 80 B.C. women have been sent to U.S. hospitals since April 1, 2007; in Ontario, 28 have been sent since January of 2007, according to figures from the respective health ministries.

André Lalonde, executive vice-president of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada, said the problem is due to bed closings that took place almost a decade ago, the absence of a national birthing initiative and too few staff.

“Neonatologists are very stretched right now,” Dr. Lalonde said in a telephone interview from Ottawa. “We’re so stretched, it’s kind of dangerous.”

<snip>

Philippe Chessex, division head of neonatology for B.C. Women’s Hospital & Health Centre, said every effort is made to avoid out-of-province transfers. Even sick babies who aren’t sent to the U.S. can still face several moves while at home.

“We’re transferring babies across the province, in all directions, to try to find an extra bed for the next potential birth or for any baby already born,” Dr. Chessex said in a telephone interview from Vancouver. “We now have babies who have been transferred up to six times after leaving here before reaching home.”

For parents, the devastating news that their baby is sick due to a malformation, illness or being born prematurely is compounded by the reality that there simply is not a bed available for their infant close to home.

“Whenever a sick baby is born, it’s really a disaster for these families because it was unexpected. And it just puts a terrible stress on them,” Dr. Chessex said. “If they are sent out of country at that moment, it is just unbelievable the kind of pressure that they must go under.”

No one knows that better than Jade Pascoe, of Cranbrook, B.C., who went into labour 15 weeks earlier than her due date. She gave birth on March 29, to Nevin James William Moore, who came into this world weighing 1 pound 10 ounces. “They tried to get me somewhere in Canada,” said Ms. Pascoe, 19. “But there was nowhere to send me.” The hospital where she gave birth does not have a NICU. And when no NICU bed could be located in B.C. or Alberta, her son was sent to a hospital in Spokane, located in eastern Washington.

During that time, doctors, nurses and others took turns using a manual respirator for six hours on the boy, until he arrived by air ambulance at Deaconess Medical Center. He is expected to stay there until July.

Of her son, born at 25 weeks gestation, Ms. Pascoe said: “I didn’t know they came that small.” Though he is not yet stable enough for her to kiss or cuddle, she can touch him. Patrice Sweeny, assistant neonatal intensive-care unit manager at Deaconess Medical Center, said Nevin is on a ventilator and requires a lot of support but he is improving.

“Jade comes in every day and is very devoted and does everything that she can,” Ms. Sweeny said in a telephone interview. “She takes his temperature, changes the diaper. She is as involved with her baby as possible.”

<snip>

Though the province is adding NICU beds, he said that in itself is not the answer. For example, when extra NICU beds were added in Victoria, it took about a year before they were operational due to the difficulty in recruiting a neonatologist.

“You need a highly skilled nurse and you need a neonatologist to help manage the ward and that’s proven challenging,” said Mr. Abbott. He said the province is working with others to find a solution.

The numbers tell the story:

$11.6-million: Amount, in U.S. dollars, British Columbia has spent on prenatal care in the States since April, 2006

$1,700: Average cost per day for a Level III neonatal intensive care bed in B.C.

$5,400: Average cost, in U.S. dollars, for a Level III bed in the States

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080505.wpregnant05/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/home

Now, before the liberals here crow about “look at the price difference!” remember that the average cost is simply what the gov’t pays. It’s in effect a price ceiling. Now, going back to Econ 101, what do price ceilings nearly always do? Did I hear ‘create supply shortages’? That’s right! Health care is a service, and is governed by supply and demand. The U.S. system has issues on this front of course, but one way we’ve responded by lavishly compensating our doctors, so that we attract the best doctors in the world. That’s one contributor to our higher health care costs. Personal anecdote: my wife’s OB/GYN is South African. Our primary care physician is Indian. His resident at this time is Iranian. So was the doctor who operated on my wife’s foot two years ago. His partner is Russian. My kid’s pediatrician is Filipino.

Of course, as noted earlier, the U.S. system has all kinds of inefficiencies which needlessly raises costs. Barriers to competition in health insurance, high malpractice rates, opaque fee schedules (who knows what a visit to the doctor really costs these days?), over-regulation, especially on new technologies and pharmaceuticals, and artificially high demand (people going to the doctor for sniffles because they think it only costs their $30 copay, then complaining when the copay goes to $35). The status quo is not satisfactory, obviously, so why not move towards less regulation, instead of more?

President Obama: Tax payer funding for abortions from day 1 in office.

2008-05-10T03:02:06-05:00

I believe in a culture of life where the lives of un-born children should be protected by law. If you agree with me then there are some things you should know about Senator Obama. Senator Obama, if elected, would be the most pro-abortion president in U.S. history. Furthermore, this pro-abortion advocacy would begin on Day 1.

How? I refer you to the “Mexico City Policy”.

In 1984, at a U.N. conference in Mexico City, President Ronald Reagan announced a new policy on abortion. This policy required non-governmental organizations to “‘agree as a condition of their receipt of [U.S.] federal funds’ that they will ‘neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations’.[2] The policy has exceptions for abortions done in response to rape, incest, or life-threatening conditions.[3]”

In 1993, on his first day in office, President Clinton rescinded the Mexico City Policy, freeing a flow of money to abortionists and their advocates around the world. In 2001, President Bush re-instated the MCP, stanching this flow of tax payer dollars to promote world-wide abortions .

It is all but certain that a President Obama, who is avowedly in support of abortion on demand all the way up to and including delivery, will lift this ban on tax payer funded abortions. He will most assuredly do this on day 1 in office, as did President Clinton.

Any who support the right to life should take note of this as well as other pro-abortion positions of Senator Obama. I could never in good conscience support such a man for office. I can’t see how any pro-life person could.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico_City_Policy

Blondes may have more fun, but …

2008-05-12T02:26:50-05:00

http://www.metro.co.uk/metrosexual/article.html?in_article_id=136135&in_page_id=8&ito=newsnow